Wine and Party Fouls
Published by Al Adomite on May 29th, 2008
I read the last two posts, a well-written one by Mark and a scorcher by yours truly, and realized that words like “bipartisan insanity” are not what this blog was intended to exude.
Which is exactly why I only wanted to start a blog if someone of Mark’s character was going to write along side my writing.
So, for today, take my apology and a brief explanation of what I was trying to write yesterday:
In a world full of new technologies, new ways to communicate, and new forms of commerce, why is government (bipartisan no less) getting in the way of my individual liberties to buy and drink the wine from smaller, mom-and-pop style wineries that are far-away from here?
Why is Springfield legislating to have someone else pick the selection of wine from which I’ll get to choose? And, does this style of governing fit either party?
It makes think of Patrick Henry. (Give me liberty or give me a bad bottle of red)
Filed under Uncategorized
May 29th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Mark nice posting on what you guys are attempting to do. Al, you shouldn’t be apologizing. I am not sure who you think you have offended. A bunch of legislators, who made a very bad vote. Some of the legislation coming out of Springfield is “bipartisan insanity” or just plain insanity. Just look at the pending legislation to bring back the scaffold law. That legislation doesn’t help anybody, but a select few trial lawyers. It is a business killer.
As bloggers, you both remind me of the end of the Rocky movie, where Rocky and Apolla having developed respect for each other, get in the ring, and dance around waiting for somebody to throw the first punch.
You guys haven’t thrown any punches on this blog. You have just been dancing.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Ron:
I’d like to think the theoretically “punches” are being thrown about in our readers’ heads. It’s not easy to be a local official, county official, state legislator, or even the President.
I’m sure my perspective was barely heard when the wine bill came up in committee in Springfield. Just as some perspectives don’t make it to the City Council or County Board floor.
That being said, my hope for this blog is that the fundamental values of the public policy process - efficiency, effectiveness, liberty, equality, the social good, majority rule, minority rights, etc., etc. - continue to fuel the debate, as opposed to the good of the distributors, or the major California wineries, or the campaign committee checkbooks.
Intellectually honest exchanges on these values will help the current state of our government no matter what the perspective.
When Emil Jones says he needs a raise, I evaluate it on whether or not he’s helping to advance the discussion in Springfield. Intellectual honesty should be more important in government.
I’d consider myself to be a marketplace conservative. That doesn’t mean I have to see eye-to-eye with other Republicans, much less Democrats, as long as we can have a good discussion about the differences and work to agree on the outcome.
May 29th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Al,
I didn’t find your post to be out of bounds in the least. In fact you were reporting the truth and sometimes that hurts.
Generally, the rules of polite conversation should apply to our blog. Name calling and threats are verboten but citing facts and reasoned conclusions should be encouraged.
Perhaps this is the best venue to debate because beer and immediacy are not involved. If something riles you, you can step back and comment later. Sometimes anger doesn’t subside but the impulse to say unnecessarily hurtful things are replaced by an elequent arguement.
I have posted a controversial subject and a partisan subject on purpose. The idea is to get a discussion started. I’m thinking about a new reader who I want to return again and again just to see what we say next.
Characterizing a law as insanity is definately within the bounds. If a reader doesn’t think so give us the logic behind the policy. We promise to give a commenter’s reasoning a respectful hearing and we just might admit when we are wrong. Just not this time!